|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 315 Records
-
1987 (1) TMI 341 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... nozzle and nozzle holders always went together and always formed a complementary unit in fitment in engine. One cannot work without the other and this is a simple fact of technology. But if coupling of the nozzle and the nozzle holder yields a new manufacture, then it is logical to say that when this unit is connected, as it must be, to the vehicle rsquo s fuel system, a new article has been manufactured, the fuel supply assembly, which must then be assessed to duty under Item 68. 14. emsp The Assistant Collector has not made out a convincing case that every mere fitting a nozzle in the holder results in a new manufacture. The two in spite of the fitting are still fully described in the item nozzle and nozzle holder they are nothing but nozzles and nozzle holders and therefore remain in the item. To call this fitting a manufacture is intolerably strained analysis. 15. emsp The assessment of the injector/atomizer under Item 68 is wrong and is set aside, and the demand with it.
-
1987 (1) TMI 340 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... facturers of the goods and did not pay the duty, hence they have no right on the department in the shape of a refund claim. 3. emsp And he is right. The claim was filed on 13-9-1978 two and a half years after the payment of duty on 30-3-1976. For this reason the appeal is rejected. 4. emsp The refund claim suffers from an even more serious disqualification the refrigeration parts were manufactured by M/s. Rup Refrigeration, Junagadh, who paid the duty at the time of clearance they alone can claim and receive refund of that duty or any part of it. M/s. Guru Nanak Ice Factory cannot be given refund of any part of that duty. For this reason also the appeal is rejected.
-
1987 (1) TMI 339 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... e is no other sub-item in item 26A which could cover the subject lsquo rods rsquo . We, therefore, hold that their classification under the residuary Tariff Item 68 was correct. As regards the other extruded sections, we find from the samples shown to us that they were specially shaped precision goods falling in the category of manufacturers and as they do not fit in the description of any of the sub-items of item 26A, they too were correctly assessed under the residuary item 68. 6. emsp The reasoning extracted above considers all the contentions raised by the appellants. The appellants mainly placed reliance on ISI specifications and the orders of the Board. But as rightly held in the earlier decision in the absence of any other sub-item in Item 26A which could cover the goods the assessment under the residuary item is correct. In view of the earlier decision and in the absence of any cogent reason to differ from it we follow the ratio of that decision and reject the appeal.
-
1987 (1) TMI 326 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Ex parte dismissal not permissible ... ... ... ... ..... of appearance and it is only his jurisdiction to do so that will have to be considered in the present appeal, it is unnecessary to state the facts leading to the refund claim. 4. Under the rules which govern the procedure of the appeals before the Collector (Appeals) there is no provision that entitled the Collector to dismiss the appeal for default of appearance. In the absence of any such provision the Collector had no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal for default. He was bound to consider the materials available and come to a conclusion on the basis thereof if he felt that no adjournment was needed to be granted. Smt. Saxena also conceded that the Collector had no jurisdiction, in the absence of any provision entitling him to do so, to dismiss the appeal for default of appearance. 5. This appeal is accordingly allowed and the order of the Collector (Appeals) is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Collector (Appeals) for disposal of the appeal in accordance with law.
-
1987 (1) TMI 325 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... nt Collector had drawn the conclusion without any evidence whatever about the actual weight of the material per sqr. yard. 9. It has to be further seen that the entire case rests on the statement of Shri Ram Pratap. The statement is said to have been made to the Audit Party. These members of the Audit Party had no authority to record any statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act as made applicable to Central Excises and Salt Act. If the said statement is, therefore, ignored as not having been recorded by a person authorised to do so there is no other evidence left against the appellants. 10. In the light of the above discussion we hold that the Department had failed to establish that during the relevant period the appellants had manufactured and cleared canvas and not dedhsuti. We, therefore, hold that the orders of the lower authorities are not correct. 11. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the orders of the lower authorities are set aside with consequential relief.
-
1987 (1) TMI 324 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... at once the chamber is cleared of the flueing gases, these valves are closed and steam and drier is injected into the chamber resulting in the production of semi-water gases. It is hence clear that the valves cannot be considered as isolating valves. They do not perform the function of isolating valves. There are separate types of valves and in order to claim the benefit of classification as an isolation valve, one would expect the unit to perform the functions of an isolating valve and not merely the functions of a gate valve. These valves cannot be considered as isolating valves since they are fitted in the pipe line or chimneys and not on the valves themselves which would be the test to decide whether the valve is an isolating valve or not. Hence on a consideration of the functions of the valves in question, we are of the view that the valve is not an isolating valve as claimed by the appellants. The classification under Heading 84.61(1) is correct. The appeal is rejected.
-
1987 (1) TMI 320 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Machinery - Used in bakery ... ... ... ... ..... Departmental Representative. Dictionary meaning of Ice Cream Cone as per Webster Dictionary is reproduced below - Ice Cream Cone - a crisp conical wafer usually about five inches long holding ice cream. Hon rsquo ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of International Foods had held that wafer is a kind if biscuit, although it maybe different in size and shape. Since there is no meaning of bakery in the Act we have to resort to the dictionary meaning and once the dictionary meaning is accepted in view of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court rsquo s judgment in the case of S.B. Sugar Mills v. Union of India (A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 922), we are of the view that ice cream cone is a bakery product. Accordingly, we hold that ice cream cone baking machine imported by the appellants falls under Heading 84.30( 1). The judgment cited by Shri N.C. Sogani, the learned consultant does not help him. In view of the above observations we do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (1) TMI 319 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances ... ... ... ... ..... time bar we are of the view that there is considerable force in the contention of the appellants. The penalty imposed under Rule 173Q has been set aside by the Board. It is, therefore, manifest that the appellants did not have intention to evade payment of duty. This is a vital concept in order to determine whether there was any suppression or clandestine removal. It is true that the appellants have not filed any Central Licence or gate pass in respect of the goods. But the assessability of the product itself is a moot question and there is a conflict of view even now in regard to the same. Under the circumstances, we are of opinion that invocation of the longer period of limitation is not called or. The show cause notice has been issued on 21-1-78 for the period 1973, 1975 and 1976. Hence the demand is barred by time. In the result the order is upheld in respect of the classification. The demand is held to be barred by time. With this modification the appeal is disposed of.
-
1987 (1) TMI 318 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... he Assistant Collector. 9. In the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms Tie Rod in mechanical engineering is defined as - ldquo A rod used a mechanical or structural support between elements of a machine. rdquo 10. In the same book Drag Link is defined as - ldquo A four bar linkage in which both cranks traverse full circles the fixed member must be the shortest link. rdquo Thus it is seen that Tie Rod Ends and Drag Link Ends are distinct items known in the engineering field. The Appellate Collector appears to have come to the conclusion on a general assessment of the issue and not with reference to the technical meaning of common trade usage. The burden is on the department to prove the classification and all the materials have not been placed before us. The samples are not now available. Hence on a consideration of the arguments advanced before us, we are of the view that the orders of the Collector cannot be sustained. In the result the appeal is allowed.
-
1987 (1) TMI 317 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal by Department ... ... ... ... ..... carefully considered the matter. We agree with the Collector rsquo s submission that when the Collector (Appeals) found that the Assistant Collector had not observed the principles of natural justice, the Collector (Appeals) ought to have set aside the Assistant Collector rsquo s order and directed the Assistant Collector to adjudicate upon the matter afresh after following the principles of natural justice particularly when the investigation of the facts was involved. 5. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals) as well as the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector. We give liberty to the Assistant Collector to take up adjudication of the matter afresh after due observance of principles of natural justice. Since the matter is already quite old, we also direct that re-adjudication proceedings, if taken up, shall be finalised within six months from the date of receipt of this order by the Assistant Collector.
-
1987 (1) TMI 316 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... able to show that the rubber hoses in question were made of hardened rubber and were also fitted with clamps. In the circumstances, in view of the earlier Tribunal Order No. B-273/83, dated 20-4-1983 passed in the appellants rsquo own appeal No. C-411/80-B, the learned Jt. Chief Departmental Representative did not contest the appeal. 2. In view of the composition of the rubber hoses and the earlier Tribunal order aforesaid, we allow this appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1987 (1) TMI 315 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... Heading 39.01/06 of CTA and Item No. 15A(i) of the Central Excise Tariff. Shri Sogani, learned Consultant for the appellants to secure the rights of the appellants, reiterates the grounds urged in the Memo of Appeal and at the time of arguments before the Bench which took the above cited decision. He, however, agrees that the decision covers the issue involved in the present appeal against the appellants though with the qualification as mentioned aforesaid. 2. Following the above said decision, we uphold the classification found by the lower authorities and dismiss the appeal.
-
1987 (1) TMI 314 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... on the orders passed by the lower authorities and has pleaded that in the absence of a notification to this effect no concession can be given to the appellants. Shri Gopinath stated that this Tribunal is a creation of statutes and the statutory provisions are binding on the Tribunal. He had pleaded for the dismissal of the appeal. 5. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no notification to the effect that duty has to be charged at the rate of 25 on the import of Forklift. We very much appreciate the feelings and sentiments of the appellants in helping the Madras Port Trust in its modernisation. We have got full sympathy with the appellants. Since the statute does not provide any grant of benefit, we are bound by the statutes and lower authorities have correctly levied the duty under Heading 87.07 of the Customs Tariff Act. In view of the above discussion we do not find any merit in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (1) TMI 313 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... read together. He has pleaded for the acceptance of the appeal. 4. Shri J. Gopinath, the learned Senior Departmental Representative, who has appeared on behalf of the respondent states that he has got no comments to the arguments of the appellants in respect of Section XVII Note 2(e) . Shri Gopinath fairly states that the Connecting Rod imported by the appellant fall under Heading 84.11 (1). He has got no objection to the acceptance of the appeal. 5. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The Connecting Rods imported by the appellants are to be used in the Compressors meant for the braking system. In view of the arguments of both the sides and after perusing 84.11 (1) we hold that the Connecting Rods imported by the appellant fall under Heading 84.11 (1). Accordingly the orders passed by the lower authorities are set aside. The appeal is allowed. The lower authorities are directed to give consequential effect to this order.
-
1987 (1) TMI 312 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... sis that they were eligible for duty exemption in terms of Notification No. 105/80. But the Assistant Collector, by order dated 19-11-1982 disallowed the claim for exemption and held that duty was liable to be paid from 1-4-1981 on the full value of the goods. This order was upheld by the Collector (Appeals) by the order which is now under challenge before us. 2. An exactly similar issue had come up before this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Fine Marbles and Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Makrana (1984 ECR 1493) in which it was held that the process of cutting marble blocks into slabs would not constitute ldquo manufacture rdquo within the meaning of Sec. 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act and that the marble slabs so produced would not be liable to excise duty under item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The Revenue had challenged this order in appeal before the Supreme Court. The court however dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the present Appeal succeeds and is allowed.
-
1987 (1) TMI 311 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... iding heads and other appliances for machine-tools tool-holders for any type of tool or machine tool or machine-tool for working in the hand. A simple perusal of the headings shows that Heading No. 84.45/48 is the correct heading and as such we order the classification of the Precision Jig Grinder Machinery under Heading 84.45/48. In respect of the accessories imported along with the Precision Jig Grinder Machinery which has been charged separately the duty has to be charged separately on merits under appropriate headings of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 in accordance with the provisions of Accessories (Conditions) Rules, 1963. In view of the above observations we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Assistant Collector having jurisdiction for de novo adjudication. It is further directed that the Assistant Collector will re-adjudicate the matter in view of the observations made in this order. For statistical purposes the appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
1987 (1) TMI 310 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Additional duty ... ... ... ... ..... articles and is known as ldquo free carbon rdquo . The composition of the tar is dependent on the temperature of carbonization and, to a lesser extent, on the nature of the cooking coal . 3. Further, it has been stated in the above reference that the end product of the distillation of coal tar is pitch. Thus it would be seen that coal tar and pitch are two separate entities. The appellants have stated in Bhilai Steel Plant a similar product manufactured indigeneously was being given the benefit of exemption notification in question. We observe that the facts of that case are not before us nor we are bound by what has been done by the Central Excise authorities of Bhilai Steel Plant. In view of the above, we hold that coal tar and coal tar pitch are two separate commodities and benefit of notification available in respect of coal tar cannot be made applicable to coal tar pitch. In view of this, the appellants rsquo claim is not maintainable and appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1987 (1) TMI 287 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... by a High Court is binding on all its subordinate courts and Tribunals and if proceedings are initiated in violation of it, such notices are invalid and proceedings started thereunder are without jurisdiction. rdquo 8. But in M/s. Atma Steels Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. C.C.E., Chandigarh, 1984 (17) ELT 331 (Tribunal), it was held that the Appellate Tribunal working on an all India basis have the freedom to consider judgments holding a conflicting views given by different High Courts and then see for ourselves as to which authority applied more fully and aptly to the facts of a given case. This would be irrespective of the fact that one assessee was within the jurisdiction of a specified High Court or the original adjudicating authority was located there. 9. In view of the above ratio, we hold that the proceedings could be continued U/S 11A which replaced Rule 10. The demand raised can be confirmed U/S 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The appeal fails and hence rejected.
-
1987 (1) TMI 284 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Imported goods ... ... ... ... ..... so as to enable the appellants to get such relief as the Port Trust may grant in the matter of demurrage charges. 26. As observed earlier, there is no statutory definition of the term ldquo woollen waste rdquo . Nor had any other definition of the said expression as such been placed before us. It is in this background that we have considered the case of the appellants and the technical authorities and expert opinions on record and arrived at our conclusions. In this context, we have also taken note of the fact that even during adjudication, the appellants had made a request that the imported goods may be suitably mutilated before being released. It, therefore, appears to us that in the circumstances of those cases, especially in the absence of any definition of the rsquo term ldquo woollen waste rdquo , the offer for mutilation may be acted upon by the Revenue, if deemed fit, before the goods are released. 27. A copy of this Order shall be placed in each of the appeal files.
-
1987 (1) TMI 281 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Tape Deck Mechanism ... ... ... ... ..... description in the packing list or invoice would not make an item tape deck mechanism if it is not really a tape deck mechanism. The importers should have produced catalogue or literature or some other evidence to establish that what had been imported are tape deck mechanism. Similarly, the Collector, instead of making personal inspection, ought to have got the goods examined by an expert and should have tried to ascertain what constitutes a tape deck mechanism. He was not right in coming to a conclusion that what was imported was not a tape deck mechanism just because it contained a few electronic components. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the matter requires further consideration. 11. In the result and for the reasons stated above, we allow this appeal set aside the order passed by the Collector but remand the matter to the Collector for fresh consideration in the light of the observations contained in this order. The parties are at liberty to adduce fresh evidence.
........
|
